Two quick things: First, as Iraq has proven, the "international community" cannot be trusted when the big problems arise. The United States has done much in Sudan over the years, and more is always demanded. And rightly so. We have been blessed with the resources to help those in need. The U.S. activities in the international scene are often thankless enterprises up until the point where they are considered to be too intrusive. Finding that perfect amount of intervention that appeases both the "do more" crowd and the "stay out" crowd is literally impossible. However, our nation must continue to do what is best for the defenseless, while keeping an ear out for constructive critique of our actions. The complexity involved is mindnumbing and anybodies attempt to catagorically explain in general terms when our action is not enough and when it is too much is bound to be a flawed enterprise. So I will not attempt to draft a comprehensive international affairs policy. However, I will make what I believe is a helpful analogy. I believe there are key differences between what is right for a State to do and what is right for an individual to do. I think that the bible is clear in that respect. But there are meta-morals applicable to both the state and individuals. And Jesus can be an example to both. This is not some attempt at imposing a scary boogyman theocracy so keep your slippery slope to theocracy thoughts at bay. Jesus touched people with deadly diseases and healed them, he talked with prostitutes, and dined with the hated of society. In other words, he had compassion. Even though the leading voices of the day criticised him for it. In international affairs, compassion should have a greater voice than it does. Compassion is not always acceptable to the leading voices in our day either. Of course, its easy to agree with things like giving some food or medicine to other nations and other help that targets direct physical needs. But as government has the power of the sword, sometimes they may have to exercise that power beyond borders. I think this much most could agree on. But that is very ambiguous for how can we agree on when that force should be exercised? I am not going to solve that dilemma at the moment. But I can tell you one thing that should not be the answer. Multilateral action is a tool and is not a good in and of itself. It does not make an action moral or immoral. Sometimes Unilateral action, despite what the loudest voices in society say, is the right choice. Fools may rush in, but I'd rather be a fool than allow thousands of innocents to die. To be sure, not every world tragedy could be taken on by one state. We can only focus our resources in a few places to be effective, despite the fact that there is always others who are in need. Nation states do this by analyzing where they could simultaneously benefit the most. Sudan deserves our help. We have resources tied up in a few other places who also deserve our help. But despite our efforts, we demand more of ourselves. I agree. It may not make us as comfortable as we could be. But the spiritual comfort that comes with having compassion for others is much more desirable than the physical comforts that not acting would give us. Shame on those other nations who will not pitch in, for their comfort is cheap and eternally worthless.
Ambassador Jendayi Frazer, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs commented on Sudan: Full Transcript
President George W. Bush commented on Sudan:
THE PRESIDENT: I just had an extraordinary conversation with fellow citizens from different faiths, all of who have come to urge our government to continue to focus on saving lives in Sudan. They agree with thousands of our citizens — hundreds of thousands of our citizens — that genocide in Sudan is unacceptable.
And there will be rallies across our country to send a message to the Sudanese government that the genocide must stop. Those rallies will also be an indication that thousands and hundreds of thousands of our citizens urge the world to unite with the United States in concerted action.
We have got AU troops on the ground; those troops need to be augmented and increased through strong United Nations action. And the United States strongly supports a U.N. resolution to do that. I believe it's important for the United States to be involved, and the best way to be involved with the AU troops is through NATO. I've worked with the Secretary General of NATO and our allies in NATO to provide a firm response to the actions that are taking place on the ground. I want the Sudanese government to understand the United States of America is serious about solving this problem.
I'm proud of our nation's generosity when it comes to aid, and the American people ought to be proud of the taxpayer dollars that have gone to provide much needed aid for those who suffer. But this government must understand that we expect the aid to get to the people and we expect there to be a solution to this problem.
There will be rallies all across the country. And for those of you who are going out to march for justice, you represent the best of our country. We believe every life is precious, every human being is important. And the signal you send to the world is a strong signal, and I welcome your participation. And I want to thank the organizers for being here.
I want to thank this good man right here — he sits here next to his President, and it wasn't all that long ago that he was a slave inside Sudan. He sits here to represent the thousands of lives who have been affected by a government that must honor human rights.
And, Simon, I'm proud to have you here as a fellow American; proud to have you here as a friend.Thank you all for coming.
Another article from Reuters:
A Jewish Rabbi, and participant in the Marches for Peace in Sudan said of the Rally:
"It is a show of solidarity, given the United States is one of few countries trying to exert pressure. There is momentum right now and the feeling we can influence things," he said.
Condoleezza Rice complained on ABC's that Washington was not getting enough support from some other members of the U.N. Security Council to take more decisive action against Sudan.", frankly, We also do need more support from members of the international community…"
President George W. Bush on Thursday issued an executive order freezing the assets of four Sudanese deemed to have posed a threat to the peace process in Darfur. But demonstrators called on the administration to do more.
